Open Immigration

Submitted by Neil Parille on Tue, 2018-03-20 23:34

Yaron Brook has said he does not support open immigration into Israel. I've heard second hand that Harry Binswanger does not support open immigration of Muslims into Israel (although he supports it into the European union.)

For a long time, many people threw around the term "ugly American" to describe those who travel abroad without respecting the cultures, language, or traditions of their various host countries. Now, we are told that refugees and immigrants have the right to open, "self-selected" immigration, and that to oppose them is racist, bigoted, etc,. Even to hold them to America's standards, regarding culture and language, once here, is considered as such...NOT only THAT, but that American culture MUST change to accommodate them...

It needs to be re-established and made clear that the United States is a plural noun. The USA are, not is.

The system was meant to have very strict limits on the central federal government, limits which have been relentessly violated further and furthermore every decade.

If California continues down the path of disobeying the laws that establish cohesion between the fifty states, and purposefully continues to facilitate the invasion of foreign illegal aliens into the country, thereby hurting all the rest of the country along with itself, only two solutions can be presented. Either California is made to obey through the force of the federal government, or they should be expelled from the union.

Greg Salami of the AntiRandInstitute recently said that:

"These people think that without California we would be a better country ... without California there would be no country."

[Quote courtesy of Henry Stafford]

Salami and the OE (Obleftivist Establishment) have made which side they are on very clear.

The truth is that California is one of the least American of all the United States of America. Losing California would be the same as excising a malevolent tumor. It might hurt for a while, but it will save you.

America is first and foremost her founding thirteen colonies, but part of the Obleftivist deconstruction of America is the deconstruction of her history.

Yawon Bwook himself has been very clear on this when he expressed his great pleasure at the removal of our monuments to the heroes of the South.

The fragile union re-established between North and South based on mutual acceptance and reconciliation, of which those monuments were an integral part, now put again in jeopardy by nihilists with no historical legacy.

The monuments to the heroes of the Revolution will come down next. The OE will noddingly approve and tell us that "there should be no public statues on public property anyhow", as Yawon Bwook has already told us.

Yesterday's news:

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A 118-year-old statue of the "Oh! Susanna" songwriter was removed from a Pittsburgh park Thursday after criticism that the work is demeaning because it includes a slave sitting at his feet, plucking a banjo.

If there is to be a government one duty of same is to protect the country. NATIONAL DEFENSE.

As I keep saying, there is only private property and public property in this country. The public is held in trust for the private. No one private property owner--real property--can invite a non-vetted foreign citizen onto his property for he cannot guarantee confining him to his property. It's the government's job to do that vetting. "NO TRESSPASSING"! You come to America by permission and invitation only!

This is a modern exigency. 9/11 made the United States into just another Israel. Rand didn't quite get this. Hers was another time.

Fox News tries in vain to put a positive spin on this. It's bad. California is a repository of The Filth, including champions of The Filth such as ARISIS. Let it not merely be allowed to secede, but expelled, made part of Mexico and walled off.

When I first visited Cali in 1977 it was radiant with glowing specimens of humanity, pulsating with the American sense of life. By the time I was last there, in 2008, ugly, surly filth was everywhere; the air was full of menace, and America elected its first overtly anti-American president. POTUS was a POS. Now, of course, the streets of places like San Francisco are knee-deep in excrement. And that's just the "people."

Altruist immigration of deadbeats is the lowest priority in a far from free west. So ban the muzzies who have declared their ill intentions, and cease enabling benefits and housing to immigrants. And extend that to citizens too.

"ARI’s viewpoint on immigration derives from our advocacy of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of reason, rational egoism and laissez-faire capitalism. In a free society, the government’s proper function is strictly limited to the protection of individual rights. That principle entails not only a policy of genuine free trade, but also 'open immigration.'"

Brook doesn't "support" one position on immigration, he supports multiple contradictory positions. If one tries to get to the bottom of his muddled thinking, it comes down to the following: he supports open borders (no borders) in theory, but opposes open borders in practice in some times and in some places for some shifting set of reasons. He says he opposes now mass migration into the US, of Muslims or anyone else, and mass migration into Europe, or of immigration of muslims into Israel. But what he favors, right now, in the US, is something like anyone with a job offer can come in. Given that far less than half of all US immigrants have a job offer -- indeed a majority are literally unemployable -- I don't think Brook understands the consequences of his proposal. It would cut the number of immigrants by 60 or 70%. On the other hand, he says US immigration numbers should expand drastically, including the cronyist H1-B program. My guess is 1) he doesn't really know anything about immigration and is uninterested in learning any detailed facts; he just listens to libertarian open borders advocate Alex Nowrasteh and his own Silicon Valley buddies and repeats their talking points uncritically, and 2) he believes that bullying and the "argument from intimidation" are the most effective tactics to use in this and any other controversial issue (see arms, right to keep and bear).

But his philosophy of different positions in theory and practice is at the root of his mental error. Since when do Objectivists beleive in a theory/practice dichotomy?

"Last March, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) initiated a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of the Tennessee legislature, charging the refugee resettlement program imposes unconstitutional unfunded mandates, requiring states to pay for resettlement whether they participate in the federal program or not. For a year, the sides engaged in legal maneuvers while the judge dawdled.

"This March, despite multiple Supreme Court rulings that the federal government cannot compel states to pay for unfunded federal mandates, the judge dismissed the case. He claimed the state of Tennessee, while fully responsible for financing the state’s share of resettlement program costs, did not have standing to bring the suit."

"Many aspects of the refugee resettlement program force states and local governments to continue to accept refugees even if they choose not to participate in the program, and pay for a laundry list of services to those refugees once resettled. The lawsuit focused specifically on the requirement for the state to pay exorbitant Medicaid costs or risk losing up to $7 billion in federal Medicaid reimbursements, an amount equal to 20 percent of the entire state budget."

Don’t Want to Run a Refugee Program? Tough

"The 1980 Refugee Act created the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program, which uses private, tax-exempt organizations called “voluntary agencies” or “VOLAGs,” and a network of subsidiaries, called “affiliates,” to resettle refugees within the United States. These organizations are paid by the head to resettle refugees. The act requires consultation with state and local governments before refugees can be resettled, and allows states to opt out of the program altogether.

"The act also promised to cover the state portion of federal welfare program costs for refugees for three years. This was an important factor in passing the act because refugees use welfare at rates much higher that of U.S. citizens or even other immigrant groups.

"States that opt out become known as “Wilson-Fish“ states, named after a 1984 refugee law proposed by Reps. Pete Wilson and Hamilton Fish that suggested alternative ways for refugees to receive welfare. The regulation, however, is not based on the actual law. ORR essentially invented it to continue taxpayer-funded resettlement in states that no longer willingly participate."

“The principle of individual rights demands open immigration. Implementing that would mean phasing out all limitations on immigration. Entry into the United States should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of criminal intent or infectious disease.”

So Dagny should never have needed to enter into the Valley as a "scab"..."Galt's Gulch" be damned...as in a structure to hold back flood waters...

Yeah, yeah, yeah..."the Gulch was a private community, blah, blah, blah, not an official country, and even they had a judge to settle disputes"...it's funny how that argument is used against anarcho-capitalists arguments directed towards Objectivist minarchism, yet now ARI is basically advocating for their own type of anarchy for immigration....what am I missing, here?

(Edit: Ok, there's this: "Entry into the United States should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of criminal intent or infectious disease.” Ok, fine; objective criteria, there. Then WHY are violations of this criteria being downplayed and/or ignored? Why overlook the rampant, widespread crime and disease spreading throughout Europe and the U.S, with the "no-go zones", "child-grooming" i.e., the disgusting euphemism for "child rape", and the imposition of Sharia Law? Just "mosquito bites?" Not to mention that Objectivist CLEARLY argues AGAINST THE USE OF FORCE, which is still inherent in Islam...)

When Rand made the argument for free speech, she certainly thought it applied to "every human being, not just by Americans." But she also said that one wasn't obliged to provide the platform upon which to speak, either. (Or shall that be the next obligation?)

(Have these Objectivist scholars placed "freedom" on some abstract Platonic pedestal? Has OrgOism been infected by the Adorno school of thought on "Freedom"? No limits? No boundaries? (Adorno's theories gave us "freedom" in music as "freedom from structure", i.e., "noise.") Hey, every human being needs to eat, not just Americans. Does this mean that there now is, in fact such thing as a "free lunch?"

So, if one has the right to freedom of movement, that doesn't mean that one has to provide the platform upon which to land, either. And that's not just talking about land; there's the schools, the welfare system, etc, upon which these people will undoubtedly want to participate in. Not to mention freedom of association, and all that. Especially if those "free moving" peoples are not inclined to adapt to the culture into which they are entering, while "obliging" the host to enable to participate in public welfare, education, and the voting process...

But this is all academic, at this point, isn't it? I know that philosophically and politically sophisticated people like Binswanger are aware of these arguments. If they're so isolated in their ivory towers of rationalism to not see the context in which this is all happening (i.e., the leftist destruction of America), then they aren't going to listen to the people actually LIVING in the world, dealing with this stuff first-hand, and are just wastes of space.

And if they ARE aware, then they truly ARE treasonous.

This current situation will be a litmus test not just for Trump, but for the shape of things to come...

Joe asks, of America's "obligation" to the caravaners from a shithole country:

Obliged?" As in, 'no choice'? REALLY?

Well ...

"Freedom of travel is a right. It is a right possessed by every human being, not just by Americans. The Mexican government or the French government has no right to stop you from entering Mexico or France, and our government has no right to stop a Mexican or Frenchman from entering America."

And:

“The principle of individual rights demands open immigration. Implementing that would mean phasing out all limitations on immigration. Entry into the United States should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of criminal intent or infectious disease.”

I was looking for a particular quote from Rand's Q&A regarding forced bussing for this thread, and I was going to say that her view against it made for an "inconvenient Rand" for the open-borders advocates at ARI. The irony was that her view FOR open immigration was on the opposite page...

But anyway, it has me thinking...has anyone made the case that open immigration, in our current context, is less about freedom of movement and more like the "forced bussing" that Rand argued against? (i.e., to import voters for the Democrats, to tip the balance of power to increase the statism that Rand was fighting in her quote against forced bussing, etc?)?

Typically, "open immigration" means anyone can move to and reside in a country if he: (1) doesn't have a criminal record; (2) isn't a suspected terrorist or terror sympathizer; and (3) doesn't have an infectious disease.

"Open borders" is the believe that there should be no stops at borders absent probably cause. In other words no background checks of any kind. Harry Binswanger is the only Objectivist I know who believes this.

The West is justified in retaining its ethnic composition because of anti-white racism. There you go, we now have our "exception" made. Now let's Build The Wall already, bring back the army from the middle east and expel the entire population of illegal aliens with it, abolish anchor baby citizenship, and refocus all visa programs towards Western countries. While we're at it, tell South Africa to back off from Afrikaners lest they wish to experience a couple of MOABs or worse.

YTAOTA! Yes To All Of The Above!

As well, a new citizenship test should apply even to entities born in America, checking for knowledge of and affinity for America's founding principles, proficiency in English and waiving any claim on welfare. Them as don't pass don't get to vote!

Bincanker favors an immigration policy of enemy invasion. I favor a citizenship policy of enemy deportation. Be good or be gone! You can't be an enemy, destroyer, saboteur, or traitor. Not if you want to stay.

Binswanker is pure Open Borders. Everyone else usually takes the Obleftivist party line and says there should be "screening" exclusively for criminals and diseases, but everyone is welcome, i.e. Open Immigration.

As for "the chosen land", everyone seems to say that they are justified in remaining an ethno-state because of "anti-semitism", but that ideally it should have Open Immigration as well, i.e. it is an "exception" because of its current circumstance.

Anyone could just as easily say that America is an exception because of its current circumstance. The "exception" argument is simply nonsensical and just goes to show who all these people actually care about, what their actual in-group preference is. Someone once said "love is exception making."

The West is justified in retaining its ethnic composition because of anti-white racism. There you go, we now have our "exception" made. Now let's Build The Wall already, bring back the army from the middle east and expel the entire population of illegal aliens with it, abolish anchor baby citizenship, and refocus all visa programs towards Western countries. While we're at it, tell South Africa to back off from Afrikaners lest they wish to experience a couple of MOABs or worse.

Harry Bincancer favors enemy invasion immigration -- not "open immigration". As always, if you want to win an intellectual debate, you have to get the words right. You can't let the Bad Guys define your terms for you.

Bincancer is evidently such a fan of enemy invasion that he favors a Formal Apology and Engraved Invitation to flagrant enemies of liberty and destroyers of America.

What is “open immigration?” Those you list have a minimal list of restrictions on entry. How open is open? The issue is the failure of at least several of the listed to bring their thinking up to date. The culprits appear unable to apply Rand’s philosophy of the moral being the practical, and that Objectivism is not a philosophy of cultural suicide. They are incapable of adjusting their values hierarchy with respect to human rights, and travel “rights.” I’m meaning maggot muzzies. The culprits ought to judge: have they that wish me dead the right to visit and stay? It is self–evident that any further years of anti–American policies by the likes of Barry Soetoro would not be good for the planet. It is not a race to the bottom, an egalitarian wet dream, that Rand presented. The culprits at ARI and their quislings have blood on their hands. Or should have. Or will have.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Navigation

More SOLO Store

Syndicate

The opinions expressed here are the unmoderated views of the contributors who express them.They do not necessarily reflect the views of other contributors, or of SOLO, and do not necessarily align with Objectivism.